Friday, March 20, 2009
"Avoid the appearance of evil"
Tweet
This post discusses 1 Thess. 5:22, an oft quoted phrase especially in Christian schools. The staff is required to sign a code of conduct stating we will not partake in any use of alcohol or tobacco, and not even gossip! Teachers love to remind students they should not even talk about things like sex, drinking or smoking, just because it might look like you are doing it. I think this is even the rational behind choosing to expel (or "remove") pregnant students from Christian schools.
Great lines from the post: "We have tricked ourselves into thinking that if we fit into a rather comfortable little understanding of "normal" Christian practices then we are good to go. Someone came up with this list, I'm guessing some time in the 20th century. Don't drink, don't chew, don't go with girls that do. And it stuck. Why?
Because it is incredibly easy. For most, anyway. For those who struggle with the particular sins we have decided are paramount (even if they are really good at avoiding the other sins like greed, jealousy, gluttony, wrath, etc.), we simply exclude them from our practices and deny even the sincerity of their faith"
Right on - The author's point is not that we shouldn't care about about the the standard Christian taboos, but rather recognize that there are a lot of, perhaps more serious, issues we should be aware of - exploiting children; mindless consumption; gluttony.
I agree with what she is saying, but I've also wondered about how what really is "evil" or, the opposite, what "good" should look like. If we take the example Jesus, it's associating very closely with "sinners," the "unclean," the outcasts and the "evil."
I agree that the ideal of being "beyond reproach" is a good one, but I would argue that we have to remember two things: 1) Like the above post, this is much more comprehensive than we like to think, and goes beyond just the sins that are easy for us to avoid. And 2) such an ideal does not mean we dissassociate from or expel those who may be "in sin" - rather, it should be just the opposite - finding the good, the divine, in everyone.
Great lines from the post: "We have tricked ourselves into thinking that if we fit into a rather comfortable little understanding of "normal" Christian practices then we are good to go. Someone came up with this list, I'm guessing some time in the 20th century. Don't drink, don't chew, don't go with girls that do. And it stuck. Why?
Because it is incredibly easy. For most, anyway. For those who struggle with the particular sins we have decided are paramount (even if they are really good at avoiding the other sins like greed, jealousy, gluttony, wrath, etc.), we simply exclude them from our practices and deny even the sincerity of their faith"
Right on - The author's point is not that we shouldn't care about about the the standard Christian taboos, but rather recognize that there are a lot of, perhaps more serious, issues we should be aware of - exploiting children; mindless consumption; gluttony.
I agree with what she is saying, but I've also wondered about how what really is "evil" or, the opposite, what "good" should look like. If we take the example Jesus, it's associating very closely with "sinners," the "unclean," the outcasts and the "evil."
I agree that the ideal of being "beyond reproach" is a good one, but I would argue that we have to remember two things: 1) Like the above post, this is much more comprehensive than we like to think, and goes beyond just the sins that are easy for us to avoid. And 2) such an ideal does not mean we dissassociate from or expel those who may be "in sin" - rather, it should be just the opposite - finding the good, the divine, in everyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There's a lot here, Jesse. I was going to actually add commentary, but I doubt my thoughts are cohesive enough at this point. I have the feeling I'll be dwelling on this all day.
Post a Comment